Why is that ones man's freedom always seems to be at the price of another man's bondage?
Homosexuals have campaigned for decades, not just for the right to enact the sexual congress they desire in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but also for no one to be able to 'discriminate' against them under any grounds in the workplace, or social life.
 |
| Contradictory Rights Demands |
Homosexuals have campaigned for decades, not just for the right to enact the sexual congress they desire in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but also for no one to be able to 'discriminate' against them under any grounds in the workplace, or social life.
This is all well and good of course, but what if these 'rights' comes at the cost of someone else's inalienable (or not so inalienable) rights? Do we have to compromise the freedom of both, or just one group in order to achieve justice?
In the case of homosexuals, their 'freedom' and 'rights', have seemingly been won at the cost of the 'rights' of other groups, noticeably the Christians (other religious groups such as Muslims, have seemingly not been impacted ... this despite their own vehement objections to homosexuality).
In the UK, peoples as diverse as Christian cake makers, and Bed and Breakfast hotel owners, have been subjected to the full rigours of the law, all for trying to exercise their rights to practise their religion and freedom of conscience, and not fully service requests that contravene their genuinely held beliefs that prohibit homosexual behaviour, or the promoting of homosexual behaviour. In these cases the courts have upheld the rights of practising homosexuals against those of practising Christians rights.
In the US, there followed a similar course of events vis a vis 'gay rights' legislation, but the robustness of the US citizens constitutional state rights has led to each state, and the religious groups in those states, being able to challenge the whole hearted acceptance of the idea that the practises of one group, can overturn the convictions of other groups over those practices. This has led to something of a legal tug of war between those deemed as 'liberal' and 'progressive', and who insist that homosexual and lesbian rights are sacrosanct, and those deemed as 'conservative' or 'illiberal', and who defend the rights of those whose religious convictions are against the practises, to not promote or support 'gay' activities.
The battles over this fundamental issue of rights rages across the land .... in the state of Arizona the governor, last year eventually vetoed a "religious freedom" law, but only after intense pressure from major US companies like Apple and American Airlines. The bill was intended to prevent the state from forcing people to provide services contrary to their religious convictions e.g. Not promoting homosexuality. Another similar bill of law is in the wings in the state of Indiana, with the governor apparently inclined to approve it, and bills are also being considered across the US, mainly in response to court rulings which have made gay marriage legal in more states.
It appears that both sides argue that, in order to grant the other their 'rights', then they are forced to curtail their own rights .... as one lawmaker described it "Everybody wants the opportunity for people to practice the rights they're supposed to have in this country." So should homosexuals be able to demand rights from others that deny them theirs, or should religious convictions be able to resist in some circumstances?
In the case of homosexuals, their 'freedom' and 'rights', have seemingly been won at the cost of the 'rights' of other groups, noticeably the Christians (other religious groups such as Muslims, have seemingly not been impacted ... this despite their own vehement objections to homosexuality).
In the UK, peoples as diverse as Christian cake makers, and Bed and Breakfast hotel owners, have been subjected to the full rigours of the law, all for trying to exercise their rights to practise their religion and freedom of conscience, and not fully service requests that contravene their genuinely held beliefs that prohibit homosexual behaviour, or the promoting of homosexual behaviour. In these cases the courts have upheld the rights of practising homosexuals against those of practising Christians rights.
In the US, there followed a similar course of events vis a vis 'gay rights' legislation, but the robustness of the US citizens constitutional state rights has led to each state, and the religious groups in those states, being able to challenge the whole hearted acceptance of the idea that the practises of one group, can overturn the convictions of other groups over those practices. This has led to something of a legal tug of war between those deemed as 'liberal' and 'progressive', and who insist that homosexual and lesbian rights are sacrosanct, and those deemed as 'conservative' or 'illiberal', and who defend the rights of those whose religious convictions are against the practises, to not promote or support 'gay' activities.
The battles over this fundamental issue of rights rages across the land .... in the state of Arizona the governor, last year eventually vetoed a "religious freedom" law, but only after intense pressure from major US companies like Apple and American Airlines. The bill was intended to prevent the state from forcing people to provide services contrary to their religious convictions e.g. Not promoting homosexuality. Another similar bill of law is in the wings in the state of Indiana, with the governor apparently inclined to approve it, and bills are also being considered across the US, mainly in response to court rulings which have made gay marriage legal in more states.
It appears that both sides argue that, in order to grant the other their 'rights', then they are forced to curtail their own rights .... as one lawmaker described it "Everybody wants the opportunity for people to practice the rights they're supposed to have in this country." So should homosexuals be able to demand rights from others that deny them theirs, or should religious convictions be able to resist in some circumstances?
Surely much of these arguments hinge on the aggressive overreach of some gay groups? After all homosexuality is legal, the 'gay' age of consent is equal, in general they can't be discriminated against, they can't be prevented from practising their lifestyle, they can 'marry' (in one form or another ~ Civil or even religious ceremonies depending upon churches), and they can adopt children.
So do they really have to force the churches and their practitioners to administer to gay marriages or do they have to force small businesses to 'promote a homosexual lifestyle' against the owners convictions? After all, they could just set up their own religious establishments rather than coerce an existing one. They could also take their business elsewhere, rather than force small businesses into closure if they don't want to support gay rights because of religious convictions ... so why do they have to enforce their rights over the top of others?
Are not the 'equal rights' they have won not enough, or do they just keep going until there is a backlash? .... Do the rights of others always have to give way in this instance? Its a conundrum that needs to be solved soon, because if push comes to shove, homosexuals could easily find their rights being rolled back, in a reactive backlash against the aggressive manner in which they try to enforce 'equality' via 'inequality'.
Now apart from the 'gay rights' issue, this debate has also raised another fundamental matter of concern. States versus Federal Democratic rights in the US. In each case where the governor steps in and stops the laws, he will do so in the direct opposition to the local elected law makers of that state, and thus thwart the majority will of the population. Can democracy survive a metro-centric elite, enforcing 'homosexual rights' over those laws or rights, which the local population want to uphold?
The principal of local democracy, dictates that its the local wishes that should win, and yet in the US and elsewhere, such as the UK, this is not the case. Homosexual rights that supersede those of other groups were never the intentions of lawmakers when the first steps towards decriminalising homosexuality were taken in the 1960's ... in fact it was often said that it would be another lifetime before we got anywhere near doing more than legalising the act. Yet here we are, inside 40yrs with 'gay' rights overruling others religious convictions, and being wielded like a weapon by the strident supporters or advocates of those rights.
So do they really have to force the churches and their practitioners to administer to gay marriages or do they have to force small businesses to 'promote a homosexual lifestyle' against the owners convictions? After all, they could just set up their own religious establishments
Are not the 'equal rights' they have won not enough, or do they just keep going until there is a backlash? .... Do the rights of others always have to give way in this instance? Its a conundrum that needs to be solved soon, because if push comes to shove, homosexuals could easily find their rights being rolled back, in a reactive backlash against the aggressive manner in which they try to enforce 'equality' via 'inequality'.
Now apart from the 'gay rights' issue, this debate has also raised another fundamental matter of concern. States versus Federal Democratic rights in the US. In each case where the governor steps in and stops the laws, he will do so in the direct opposition to the local elected law makers of that state, and thus thwart the majority will of the population. Can democracy survive a metro-centric elite, enforcing 'homosexual rights' over those laws or rights, which the local population want to uphold?
The principal of local democracy, dictates that its the local wishes that should win, and yet in the US and elsewhere, such as the UK, this is not the case. Homosexual rights that supersede those of other groups were never the intentions of lawmakers when the first steps towards decriminalising homosexuality were taken in the 1960's ... in fact it was often said that it would be another lifetime before we got anywhere near doing more than legalising the act. Yet here we are, inside 40yrs with 'gay' rights overruling others religious convictions, and being wielded like a weapon by the strident supporters or advocates of those rights.
There is no conundrum; being gay is not a choice and "gay rights" are just any other person's rights in the case of a gay person; if there wasn't so much prejudice against them it wouldn't need to be labelled at all. Religious freedom on the other hand is mostly just an excuse to be prejudice - if you want to hate gays, just join the Catholic church and the law will be on your side.
ReplyDeleteWhy should a b&b owner be able to descriminate against gays? Would it be ok for them to descriminate against skin colour? There is no difference, they're both irrational and arbitrary. You might as well hate someone for the colour of their shirt - if you can find a religion with the proclamation "bear no one to wear the colour of the land", interpret it to mean the colour which you personally dislike and the law will enforce your "religious freedom".
There is no getting round one fact ... the freedom of one group to practise their lifestyle, can and does, butt up against others freedom of conscience to follow their religion. Whilst I fully understand your points, I can also understand that followers of a belief system that has existed for 2,000 yrs, objecting to being told by lawyers that they have to change, or subsume those beliefs, in order to accommodate a group, whose practises have only gained full legal status in the last 25 or 40 years or so.
DeleteWhen you also consider that many people were tortured and killed in Communist Eastern Europe, or under the Nazis, for following those same matters of conscience, then its easy to see that there are those who, whilst not wishing harm to any other group, are prepared to resist being told that their rights are to be curtailed.
Personally I believe, rightly or wrongly, that there are homosexual rights advocacy groups, who are actually creating some of these issues, when frankly they have won most of what they wanted, and should tread a little more softly over the odd small instance where they bump into other peoples rights.
Oh and here's a thought ... is the opposition to homosexual rights in Russia and the Eastern Church, as well as in the Muslim world, not being partly fuelled by what they observe in the Western world? It has to be at least a factor.
You're straining to justify veiled prejudice. The church has had those 2,000 years to realise by themselves that certain beliefs were archaic and wrong ; there'd be no need for lawyers to point it out to them if they weren't so stuck in their dogma.
DeleteIs it not the case that the only rights being curtailed are those to discriminate by the religious?
DeleteI can't agree .... A religion that constantly examined its dogma to determine if certain beliefs were archaic and wrong would be dead within a century or two (as perhaps the CofE will prove as it embarks upon the destruction of its creed .... but that's for another discussion)
DeleteAs for my prejudice in this matter, veiled or otherwise, well my argument is simply the fact that I and many others don't like being told what I must or must not agree with, or think. That the state has no right to bypass local democracy (as has happened in the USA and UK), and enforce its own 'rules' in social matters, because in a democracy that's wrong.
Once the law is used to invoke or enforce social rules, contrary to the wishes of the majority, its not one I can agree with. The churches used their power to enforce social rules for many centuries, and were wrong. But for us to finally lose that control, only to reintroduce those coercive powers via civil laws, but in another cause, is not acceptable either.
An age of reason should allow each man to act upon their own conscience in as many cases as possible ... would I want to live in the PC world that Harriet Harman and her ilk could envisage? Most definitely No.
.
Someone has to strain to protect hard won protect rights, even for those who I am personally not all that sympathetic to ...we all have rights or none of us do. We have opted for a society that declares that even groups who detest our society should have their rights, and yet one of the prime movers in creating those rights e.g The Christian quakers on abolition of slavery, or prison reform etc, are in danger of being denied their beliefs, which however flawed they may be, were still one of the foundation stones for the society which we became.
ReplyDeleteIt would be ironic indeed if the creed which partly led to for example the idea of workers rights (the Labour party was partly formed out of the Wesleyan traditions), are now denied some rights as a consequence of offering them to others.
Ah well, this is something of a circular argument, because as I see it there is a conundrum. We can't all have equal rights, unless we compromise all round, and accept that we can't have 100% of what we want.
If I can interrupt in to your argument? Governor Mike Pense of Indiana passed the bill last Thursday. So your both a little bit late.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to interrupt, comments are (nearly) always welcome as long as they stick to basic legalities. But don't be shy, use a name and location, it makes the conversation more interesting.
DeleteThe bloggers curse is that you often write posts up well in advance of publication. You try to tweak them for fact changes just before they go live, but occasionally this misses an important event. Thanks for pointing out this fact .... I will have to watch what happens next and post a follow up in a few weeks or months if there are more twists and turns.
And faster than a speeding bullet ..... the governor of Indiana is now back pedalling as fast as he decently can. He has announced that he wants state lawmakers to "fix" a 'religious freedom law' that has created a national outcry (well, amongst some groups), including in Indiana. He wants state lawmakers to add language to the law that clarifies its intentions, by the end of the week. "This is a clarification, but it's also a fix."
DeleteFor reasons that eluded me at first, Apple corp have taken to wading into the debate "We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law," Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook tweeted. "Apple is open for everyone" ..... I then read that Mr Cook is openly homosexual.
Is the US now so deeply in thrall to the biggest of corporations that local laws have to be written to their CEO's approval? ..... I repeat, that in my opinion this whole debate raises some big issues about rights, and local democracy.
Indiana Story
Apple Story